[bitek]

This is precisely reason why I will stick with blackberry. Cheap android phones , nexus 5 st amazing $350 price and "free" games come at a steep price of your privacy. I will deactivate my Google plus account. I will not buy android phone. Nothing is free but unfortunately kids buying android phones simply do not get it. It is Idiotic to support company that ease drops on our privacy. I rather pay $600 for z30 and pay for apps and have my privacy intact. Android model kills Blackberry with its dirty cheap products . I would rather stock up and by ten q10 for next decade than have Google watching my life and making off me.

Google 'shared endorsement' spark user backlash

In the Wild West world of online advertising, Google is hoping to add a new weapon to its already formidable arsenal: your name and face.

The internet behemoth is planning to deploy names and photos of users of its Google Plus social network and reviews they've made there to pitch products to their online friends and tout the quaint little neighbourhoodrestaurant.

Google is offering users away to opt out of thesenew "shared endorsements."


This example from Google shows how a shared endorsement might appear in an ad. (Google)

But the plan that is expected to launch next month has already sparked a backlash, and has refocused attention on just how much control those going online haveover their personal data.

?"People have a reasonable expectation that when we click ?Like? on a product, or we click ?Follow? for a brand, or we check in on Foursquare that ?we understand how that information is being used,"saysSidneyeveMatrix, a media professor at Queen?s University in Kingston, Ont.

"To flip the script and then say we?re going to use this information ? in a different way is very confusing and makes consumers really uncomfortable and irate."

Under the new terms of service that kick in on Nov. 11, the name and photo a user employs in Google Plus could be included in ads that incorporate that user's endorsement of anew Thai restaurant down the street, a new deli around the corner or the latest song that user bought through the Google Play store.

Those product or service reviews, which a user has already posted somewhere on his or her Google network, could show up in ads seen by the user?s friends and connections, and the broader public, when they do a Google search.

"We want to give you ? and your friends and connections ? the most useful information. Recommendations from people you know can really help,"the company said in an explanation of the changes.

In reply, some Google Plus users have already shown their distaste for the plan by swapping out their personal photos in favour of one of Google executive chairman Eric Schmidt.

In adopting "shared endorsements,"the company won?t be gleaning new information from its 390 million active Google Plus users per month? it?s just changing how it uses what it already has.

Less control
"Essentially people were giving this information to Google Plus all along,"says Avi Goldfarb, a marketing professor in the University of Toronto?s Rotman School of Management.

"What?s changed now is now you don?t have control over when and in what situations people see that, and so that can make some people uncomfortable."

Google?s foray into broader use of names and photos is not the first such effort to create a closer, more personal link to advertising content ?andultimately to try to make more money from it.

"It?s certainly not foolproof, but the research shows that we?re more likely to trust something that we think has been recommended by an average consumer like ourselves,"says Matrix. "The very best endorsement would be from somebody that we know," even if only loosely through some sort of social media connection.

In the case of sponsored endorsements,Google is following in the footsteps of Facebook and its use of "sponsored stories,"a practice that ended up costing Facebook $20 million to settle a class action lawsuit and compensate users whose personal details were featured in advertisements without their permission.

"The public sentiment was very, very negative," says Matrix, "and so Google is using the same strategy and they know they're going to need to provide an easy opt-out for people."

Both Matrix and Goldfarb say Google?s opt-out option for shared endorsementsis fairly transparent and clear.

With its one box to click at the bottom of the settingspage, the opt-out function "seems much more user-friendly than some of the other terms of service that we get with apps that we download,"says Matrix.

But users have to take action themselves if they wish to ensure their faces don?t end up fronting promotions they might not have intended for a broader audience.

And that default position, suggests Goldfarb, is what is particularly controversial about Google?s latest move,the fact that "if you don?t do anything, this can happen."

Default position
For people who care deeply about their privacy and are always on the lookout for ways it might be compromised, the opt-out function could easily look after their concerns.

"The people who care most passionately about their own privacy are, at some level, not at risk,? says Goldfarb. "It is a very straightforward process to change."

And for some people, "shared endorsements"might be welcome.

'It?s people in the middle, people who might not care strongly one way or the other, that are going to be affected.'- AviGoldfarb
"The people who appreciate targeted and effective advertisements, to the extent there are such people, benefit by better targeted or ? more noticeable and relevant messages,"says Goldfarb.

"It?s people in the middle, people who might not care strongly one way or the other, that are going to be affected," he says.

While the opt-out optionmay offer those concerned about privacy a comfortable way out of Google?s latest plan, Matrix cautions against anyone ever thinking that privacy settings offer full online protection.

Don't count on privacy settings
"Assuming that we?ve got our privacy settings set, and so then we?re safe, is probably very ill-advised,? she says.

"Google?s in the courts right now and they were arguing that people don?t have a reasonable expectation of privacy in our email. So I think that we can?t rely on the privacy settings."

What, then, could a person concerned about privacy rely on? Matrix offers another cautionary answer.

"I think that when you?re typing anything online, you can rely on the fact that it may be made public.

"When you post an image online, you can rely on the chance that it may become public and in places that ? you just would never expect."

Google?s proposed use of shared endorsementsmay have sparked controversy, but there?s no sense it will be the last time an internet company seeks to find new ways to use personal information and images.

'Amazing opportunities'
"There arelots of amazing opportunities for companies to use data to better serve customers, and as we get more and more data we?re going to see more and more companies take advantage of these opportunities to better serve their customers," says Goldfarb.

But with that comes a trade-off between giving people the services they want and having them remain comfortable offering up the data.

"There?s this fine balance at the company level and at the regulatory level, the government level, in terms of what is the right level of privacy protection and that?s an ongoing debate,"says Goldfarb.

"There?s lots of variation across countries and we?re all still figuring it out."

Posted via CB10

[ElGusta]

The majority of people don't care about personal privacy. Me included.

If some shadowy figure wants to read my musings of sweet nothings directed to my girlfriend, or which websites I frequently, or where I'm going for dinner... So be it, I don't care to be honest.

[djdragon]

The majority of people don't care about personal privacy. Me included.

If some shadowy figure wants to read my musings of sweet nothings directed to my girlfriend, or which websites I frequently, or where I'm going for dinner... So be it, I don't care to be honest.

You should care. Eventually you WILL care.

Z10 10.2.0.1767 via CB10

[michaelshawn]

You should take some time and watch the movie enemy of the state. Will smith didn't care either

Posted from My all in one beauty Z10

[Tre Lawrence]

LOL. OP, your read BBRY's privacy TOS lately?

[Andy_bb_king]

Google is evil. I don't use google's products like Google drive etc. Why do you store your private things in there? Google has all access to them.

Posted via CB10

[ElGusta]

You should care. Eventually you WILL care.

Z10 10.2.0.1767 via CB10

Why?

[Tre Lawrence]

Google is evil. I don't use google's products like Google drive etc. Why do you store your private things in there? Google has all access to them.

Private things should not be saved online, period.

BBRY collects data too.

[TgeekB]

Everyone can decide whether they believe this is a threat or not.

[Tre Lawrence]

Why?

Do you want to be running through a tunnel in boxers and bath robe like Will Smith?

[TgeekB]

Do you want to be running through a tunnel in boxers and bath robe like Will Smith?

Great. Now I have to watch the movie to see how to survive.

[ElGusta]

Do you want to be running through a tunnel in boxers and bath robe like Will Smith?

Well if anyone ever slips a video depicting a murder by a powerful government organization into my pocket ... I might consider not uploading it onto Google drive.

By barring such unlikely events, why should I care?

[SunshineStateFlyer]

I think it's a little exaggerated how evil, conspirative and bad you describe Google. They are an innovative internet company and they didn't force anyone to give up their privacy. It's just how things have turned out. Most people prefer convenience over security and don't even care. I can even understand that up to some extent.

It is illusive though to see BlackBerry as the ultimate data vault or as the privacy rebel device.

Posted via CB10

[Kamika007z]

The majority of people don't care about personal privacy. Me included.

If some shadowy figure wants to read my musings of sweet nothings directed to my girlfriend, or which websites I frequently, or where I'm going for dinner... So be it, I don't care to be honest.

That's a pretty naive of you to think that.

This is just the start of it. All these social mediums online will only get worse and worse because they have started something that they cannot deflate.

Djdragon is right. Eventually you WILL care.

[fairycake]

It still amazes me how many peeps still don�t understand how the really world works, here�s a taste:



like the first comment says

Once your awake you never want to go back, you rather die than to go back

[kbz1960]

I want to know where Google execs surf, eat, live, where they go, who they talk to. Can I find that out?

[Bsbudd]

Do a search on "Blackberry Privacy Concerns". What is it exactly you are afraid off?

[kbz1960]

Do a search on "Blackberry Privacy Concerns". What is it exactly you are afraid off?

I don't think they are afraid. I think they are concerned that their life is being exposed to anyone that wants to see it without their permission. What they share on social media is their own fault.

[ray689]

By design, this whole thing is meant for you to "not care"...and when you do realize that you should, there won't be anything you can do about it. the vast majority is blind to what is happening and as history has proven time and time again, that never ends well.

Posted via CB10

[ElGusta]

That's a pretty naive of you to think that.

This is just the start of it. All these social mediums online will only get worse and worse because they have started something that they cannot deflate.

Djdragon is right. Eventually you WILL care.

And AGAIN, I ask you and other fear mongering 'security experts' WHY I should care.

Any tangible examples or even thoughts other than all this 'you'll see bs'?

Considering the government already has access to all your medical, financial, and work history a lot of you are quite comically directing your privacy concerns in the wrong direction.

[kbz1960]

And AGAIN, I ask you and other fear mongering 'security experts' WHY I should care.

Any tangible examples or even thoughts other than all this 'you'll see bs'?

Considering the government already has access to all your medical, financial, and work history a lot of you are quite comically directing your privacy concerns in the wrong direction.

Can I find out where Google execs hang out? Where they go? Who they talk to? If not, why not? They opted out?

[Oneshortsleeve]

So F*%#ing what? Google knows where I go shoe shopping or where my favorite sandwich shop is. If I am not doing anything shady, why should I care? Plus, the number of features I receive by Google knowing this (My Tracks for location history, monthly activity summary so I can see how much time I spend at work/at home/biking/walking etc, automatic weather updates based on location, restaurant suggestions based on history, reminders on my phone triggered by when I arrive to a particular location, automatic event creation and flight information by what is in my email, traffic alerts based on my work schedule, automatic package tracking, and much more) far out weighs the risk of Google knowing where I go for haircuts.

[ElGusta]

Can I find out where Google execs hang out? Where they go? Who they talk to? If not, why not? They opted out?

What the hell are you talking about?

[raw_dog]

To those of you who care nothing about your privacy; I ask, why then do you lock your doors? Why do you use a password for your online banking? Why do your close the curtains? Why do you wear clothes? To say that you care nothing about your privacy causes me to wonder if that is actually true.

[collinc93]

damn!! You made me check the date to see whether it was April 1 already!!